LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Bretman, Amanda; Lize, Anne; Walling, Craig A.; Price, Tom A. R. (2014)
Publisher: PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
Journal: PLOS ONE
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Animal Models, Research Article, Sexual Selection, Evolutionary Processes, DROSOPHILA-PSEUDOOBSCURA, Ecology, Evolutionary Biology, Sexual Behavior, WILD BIRD POPULATION, Evolutionary Ecology, BY-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTIONS, Biology, Veterinary Science, Behavioral Ecology, Animal Behavior, Medicine, PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY, Q, R, SELECTION, Model Organisms, Science, Entomology, NATURAL-POPULATIONS, COPULATION DURATION, REACTION NORMS, Animal Management, SEX-RATIO POLYMORPHISM, Zoology, GENETIC-VARIATION

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: fungi, reproductive and urinary physiology

Phenotypic plasticity is a key mechanism by which animals can cope with rapidly changeable environments, but the evolutionary lability of such plasticity remains unclear. The socio-sexual environment can fluctuate very rapidly, affecting both the frequency of mating opportunities and the level of competition males may face. Males of many species show plastic behavioural responses to changes in social environment, in particular the presence of rival males. For example, Drosophila pseudoobscura males respond to rivals by extending mating duration and increasing ejaculate size. Whilst such responses are predicted to be adaptive, the extent to which the magnitude of response is heritable, and hence selectable, is unknown. We investigated this using isofemale lines of the fruit fly D. pseudoobscura, estimating heritability of mating duration in males exposed or not to a rival, and any genetic basis to the change in this trait between these environments (i.e. degree of plasticity). The two populations differed in population sex ratio, and the presence of a sex ratio distorting selfish chromosome. We find that mating duration is heritable, but no evidence of population differences. We find no significant heritability of plasticity in mating duration in one population, but borderline significant heritability of plasticity in the second. This difference between populations might be related to the presence of the sex ratio distorting selfish gene in the latter population, but this will require investigation in additional populations to draw any conclusions. We suggest that there is scope for selection to produce an evolutionary response in the plasticity of mating duration in response to rivals in D. pseudoobscura, at least in some populations.

  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. West-Eberhard MJ (2003) Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    • 2. Scheiner SM (1993) Genetics and evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Ann Rev Ecol & Syst 24: 35-68.
    • 3. Parker GA (1982) Phenotype-limited evolutionary stable strategies. In: King's College Sociobiology Group C, editor. Current Problems in Sociobiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 173-201.
    • 4. Ghalambor CK, Angeloni LM, Carroll SP (2010) Behavior as phenotypic plasticity. In: Westneat DF, Fox CW, editors. Evol Behav Ecol: OUP. 90-107.
    • 5. Hendry AP, Farrugia TJ, Kinnison MT (2008) Human influences on the rates of phenotypic change in wild animal populations. Mol Ecol 17: 20-29.
    • 6. Via S, Gomulkiewicz R, De Jong D, Scheiner SM, Schlichting CD, et al. (1995) Adaptive plasticity, consensus and controversy. Trends in Ecol & Evol 10: 212- 217.
    • 7. Dingemanse NJ, Kazem AJN, Re´ale D, Wright J (2009) Behavioural reaction norms: animal personality meets individual plasticity. Trends in Ecol & Evol 25: 81-89.
    • 8. Pigliucci M (2005) Evolution of phenotypic plasticity: where are we going now? Trends in Ecology and EvolutionEcol & Evol 20: 481-486.
    • 9. Parker GA (1970) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol Rev of the Cambridge Phil Soc 45: 525-567.
    • 10. Kasumovic MM, Bruce MJ, Andrade MCB, Herberstein ME (2008) Spatial and temporal demographic variation drives within-season fluctutations in sexual selection. Evolution 62: 2316-2325.
    • 11. Bretman A, Gage MJG, Chapman T (2011) Quick-change artists: adult behavioural plasticity at mating. Trends in Ecol & Evol 26: 467-473.
    • 12. Parker GA, Ball M, Stockley P, Gage MJG (1997) Sperm competition games: a prospective analysis of risk assessment. Proc R Soc B 264: 1793-1802.
    • 13. Parker GA, Ball MA, Stockley P, Gage MJG (1996) Sperm competition games: individual assessment of sperm competition intensity by group spawners. Proc R Soc B 263: 1291-1297.
    • 14. Wedell N, Gage MJG, Parker GA (2002) Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm limited females. Trends in Ecol & Evol 17: 313-320.
    • 15. Wedell N, Tregenza T (1999) Successful fathers sire successful sons. Evolution 53: 620-625.
    • 16. Morrow EH, Gage MJG (2001) Artificial selection and heritability of sperm length in Gryllus bimaculatus. Heredity 87: 356-362.
    • 17. Simmons LW, Kotiaho JS (2002) Evolution of ejaculates: Patterns of phenotypic and genotypic variation and condition dependence in sperm competition traits. Evolution 56: 1622-1631.
    • 18. Jia FY, Greenfield MD, Collins RD (2000) Genetic variance of sexually selected traits in waxmoths: maintenance by genotype x environment interaction. Evolution 54: 953-967.
    • 19. Qvarnstrom A (1999) Genotype-by-environment interactions in the determination of the size of a secondary sexual character in the collared flycatcher (Ficedula albicollis). Evolution 53: 1564-1572.
    • 20. Rowe L, Houle D (1996) The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc R Soc B 263: 1415-1421.
    • 21. Bretman A, Fricke C, Chapman T (2009) Plastic responses of male Drosophila melanogaster to the level of sperm competition increase male reproductive fitness. Proc R Soc B 276: 1705-1711.
    • 22. Wigby S, Sirot LK, Linklater JR, Buehner N, Calboli FCF, et al. (2009) Drosophila melanogaster males modify seminal fluid protein transfer in response to social cues and artificial selection on accessory gland size. Current Biology 19: 751-757.
    • 23. Price TAR, Lize´ A, Marcello M, Bretman A (2012) Experience of mating rivals causes males to modulate sperm transfer in the fly Drosophila pseudoobscura. J Insect Physiol 58: 1669-1675.
    • 24. Mazzi D, Kesa¨niemi J, Hoikkala A, Klappert K (2009) Sexual conflict over the duration of copulation in Drosophila montana: why is longer better? BMC Evol Biol 9: 132.
    • 25. Lize´ A, Doff RJ, Smaller EA, Lewis Z, Hurst GDD (2012) Perception of malemale competition influences Drosophila copulation behaviour even in species where females rarely remate. Biology Letters 8: 35-38.
    • 26. Fisher D, Doff R, Price TAR (2013) True polyandry and pseudopolyandry: why does a monandrous fly remate? BMC Evol Biol 13: 157.
    • 27. Bryant SH, Beckenbach AT, Cobbs G (1982) Sex ratio, sex composition, and relative abundance in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Evolution 36: 27-34.
    • 28. Holman L, Snook RR (2008) A sterile sperm caste protects brother fertile sperm from female-mediated death in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Current Biology 18: 292- 296.
    • 29. Markow T, O'Grady P (2006) Drosophila: a guide to species identification and use. Amsterdam: Academic Press.
    • 30. Beckenbach AT (1996) Selection and the ''sex-ratio'' polymorphism in natural populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Evolution 50: 787-794.
    • 31. Dobzhansky T (1958) The genetics of natural populations. XXVII. The genetic changes in populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura in the American Southwest. Evolution 12: 385-401.
    • 32. Price TAR, Lewis Z, Smith DT, Hurst GDD, Wedell N (2011) Remating in the laboratory reflects rates of polyandry in the wild. Anim Behav 82: 1381-1386.
    • 33. David J, Gibert P, Legout H, Pe´tavy G, Capy P, et al. (2005) Isofemale lines in Drosophila: an empirical approach to quantitative trait analysis in natural populations. Heredity 94: 3-12.
    • 34. Policansky D (1979) Fertility differences as a factor in the maintenance of the ''sex ratio'' polymorphism in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Am Nat 114: 672-680.
    • 35. Bretman A, Westmancoat J, Gage MJG, Chapman T (2012) Individual plastic responses by males to rivals reveal mismatches between behaviour and fitness outcomes. Proc R Soc B 279: 2868-2876.
    • 36. Beckenbach AT (1978) The ''sex-ratio'' trait in Drosophila pseudoobscura: fertility relations of males and meiotic drive. Am Nat 112: 97-117.
    • 37. Snook RR, So Y (2000) Associations between female remating behavior, oogenesis and oviposition in Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila pseudoobscura. J Insect Physiol 46: 1489-1496.
    • 38. Bretman A, Fricke C, Hetherington P, Stone R, Chapman T (2010) Exposure to rivals and plastic responses to sperm competition in Drosophila melanogaster. Behav Ecol 21: 317-321.
    • 39. Barron AB (2000) Anaesthetising Drosophila for behavioural studies. J Insect Physiol 46: 439-442.
    • 40. Gilmour AR, Gogel BJ, Cullis BR, Thompson R (2009) ASReml User Guide Release 3.0. Hemel Hempstead, HP1 1ES, UK, www.vsni.co.uk: VSN International Ltd.
    • 41. Visscher PM (2006) A not on the asymptotic distribution of likelihood ratio tests to test variance components. Twin Res & Human Genet 9: 490-495.
    • 42. Gromko MH (1987) Genetic constraint on the evolution of courtship behavior in Drosophila melanogaster. Heredity 62: 251-255.
    • 43. Gromko MH, Briot A, Jensen SC, Fukui HH (1991) Selection on copulation duration in Drosophila melanogaster: predictability of direct response versus unpredictability of correlated response. Evolution 45: 69-81.
    • 44. Gromko MH (1989) Quantitative genetic analysis of courtship and reproduction in female Drosophila melanogaster. Heredity 62: 251-255.
    • 45. Taylor M, Evans J, Garcia-Gonzalez F (2013) No evidence of heritability of male mating latency or copulation duration across social environments. PlosOne 8: e77347.
    • 46. Muhlhauser C, Blankenhorn WU, Ward PI (1996) The genetic component of copula duration in the yellow dung fly. Anim Behav 51: 1401-1407.
    • 47. Brown EA, Gay L, Vasudev R, Tregenza T, Eady PE, et al. (2009) Negative phenotypic and genetic associations between copulation duration and longevity in male seed beetles. Heredity 103: 340-345.
    • 48. Carroll SP, Corneli P (1995) Divergence in male mating tactics between two populations of the soapberry bug: II. Genetic change and the evolution of a plastic reaction norm in a variable social environment. Behav Ecol 6: 46-56.
    • 49. Dobzhansky T, Epling C (1944) Contributions to the Genetics, Taxonomy, and Ecology of Drosophila pseudoobscura and Its Relatives. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institute of Washington.
    • 50. Stirling G, Roff DA (2000) Behaviour plasticity without learning: phenotypic and genetic variation of naive Daphnia in an ecological trade-off. Anim Behav 59: 929-941.
    • 51. Dingemanse NJ, Barber I, Wright J, Brommer JE (2012) Quantitative genetics of behavioural reaction norms: genetic correlations between personality and behavioural plasticity vary across stickleback populations. J Evol Biol 25: 485- 496.
    • 52. Brommer JE, Merila J, Sheldon BC, Gustafsson L (2005) Natural selection and genetic variation for reproductive reaction norms in a wild bird population. Evolution 59: 1362-1371.
    • 53. Brommer JE, Rattiste K, Wilson AJ (2008) Exploring plasticity in the wild: laying date-temperature reaction norms in the common gull Larus canus. Proc R Soc B 275: 687-693.
    • 54. Nussey DH, Postma E, Gienapp P, Visser ME (2005) Selection on heritable phenotypic plasticity in a wild bird population. Science 310: 304-306.
    • 55. Ingleby FC, Hosken DJ, Flowers K, Hawkes MF, Lane SM, et al. (2013) Genotype-by-environment interactions for cuticular hydrocarbon expression in Drosophila simulans. J Evol Biol 26: 94-107.
    • 56. Archer J, Asher GF, PJ, Ward J, Scott I, Bixley M, et al. (2013) Genetics of early conception and its relationship to growth traits in red deer (Cervus elaphus). Anim Prod Sci 53: 1083-1087.
    • 57. Lynch M, Walsh B (1998) Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates.
    • 58. Fisher RA (1958) The genetical theory of natural selection, 2nd edition. New York: Dover.
    • 59. Bretman A, Fricke C, Chapman T (2009) Plastic responses of male Drosophila melanogaster to the level of sperm competition increase male reproductive fitness. Proc R Soc B 276: 1705-1711.
    • 60. Bretman A, Westmancoat J, Gage MJG, Chapman T (2011) Males use multiple, redundant cues to detect mating rivals. Current Biology 21: 1-6.
    • 61. Lize´ A, Price TAR, Marcello M, Smaller EA, Lewis Z, et al. (2012) Males do not prolong copulation in response to competitor males in the polyandrous fly Drosophila bifasciata. Physiol Entomol 37: 227-232.
    • 62. Charney E (2012) Behavior genetics and postgenomics. Behav & Brain Sci 35: 331-410.
    • 63. Lize´ A, Cortesero A, Atlan A, Poinsot D (2007) Kin recognition in Aleochara bilineata could support the kinship theory of genomic imprinting. Genetics 175: 1735-1740.
    • 64. Scheiner SM (2002) Selection experiemnts and the study of phenotypic plasticity. J Evol Biol 15: 889-898.
    • 65. Renn SCP, Schumer ME (2013) Genetic accomodation and behavioural evolution: insights from genomic studies. Anim Behav 85: 1012-1022.
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
    52
    52%
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Published in

Funded by projects

  • EC | REPROEVOL
  • RCUK | Why females mate once: fro...
  • RCUK | How males respond to rival...
  • RCUK | The evolution of female ma...

Cite this article